That's all well and good. Now explain how it would have prevented a thruster failure. Or a metric-english conversion error on the entry trajectory calculation. Or a failed parachute. Or a launch vehicle failure. Or virtually any of the common ways that unmanned probes have actually failed. You might be able to salvage ~20% of them with humans aboard. Might. Meanwhile, humans are a massive added source of additional risk to a mission; they dramatically increase spacecraft size, complexity / part count, consumables, and just in general make things far more difficult. And you can build and launch numerous unmanned missions for the cost of one manned mission.
Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn't all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his "George" magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious. How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.
"Uneducated" does not appear in there.
So, let's get this straight: the "scandal" here is that some nobody third party, rambled to someone - not Hillary, just to her campaign manager - that he's concerned that Clinton won't be able to get people to pay attention to "poll-driven, demographically-inspired messaging" when Trump is a "Kim Kardashian mold" entertainer spouting "hairbrained ideas" every day, and you can't get the news cycle to "default to policy" in such an environment. I can't make heads or tails of what that "compliant" remark is supposed to mean, but in general I think we can draw one clear conclusion: Hillary is clearly a demon, and we must elect Cheeto Benito instead.
That's a link to Wikileaks's front page, not a link to a "compliant and uneducated voters" statement.
Googling for the phrase "compliant and uneducated voters" only comes up with this comment, presumably also by you.
As for your "there would be riots in the street", your people are talking about rioting in the streets. Not just riots, but outright coups if Hillary is elected. On camera. And your candidate is deliberately whipping them up to this with all of his repeated "shadowy conspiracy stealing the election with massive fraud" talk.
Right. Part two of "James O'Keefe Does His Typical Hit Jobs".
For anyone who doesn't know his past, he made his name with the "ACORN videos", which led to investigations of the organization - and consequently, the videos. The results? From the Wikipedia summary:
The California Attorney General's Office granted O'Keefe and Giles limited immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing the full, unedited videotapes related to ACORN offices in California.[11] The AG's Report was released on April 1, 2010, concluding that the videos from ACORN offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Bernardino had been "severely edited."[11] The report found there was no evidence of criminal conduct on the part of ACORN employees nor any evidence that any employee intended to aid or abet criminal conduct. It found that three employees had tried to deflect the couple's plans, told them ACORN could not offer them help on the grounds they wanted, and otherwise dealt with them appropriately. Such context was not reflected in O'Keefe's edited tapes. The AG's Report noted that "O'Keefe stated that he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story". It found no evidence of intent by the employees to aid the couple. The report also noted "a serious and glaring deficit in management, governance and accountability within the ACORN organization" and said its conduct "suggests an organizational ethos at odds with the norms of American society. Empowering and serving low-and moderate-income families cannot be squared with counseling and encouraging illegal activities."[11]
The AG's report confirmed that ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera, shown in O'Keefe's video as apparently aiding a human smuggling proposal, had immediately reported his encounter with the couple to a Mexican police detective at the time to thwart their plan. Following the AG's report, that employee, who had been fired by ACORN after the video's release, sued O'Keefe and Giles in 2010. He alleged invasion of privacy and cited a California law that prohibits recordings without consent of all parties involved.[54]
O'Keefe moved for summary judgment in his favor, arguing that the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation that the conversation would be private. In August 2012, the federal judge hearing the case denied O'Keefe's motion for summary judgment. The judge ruled that O'Keefe had "misled plaintiff to believe that the conversation would remain confidential by posing as a client seeking services from ACORN and asking whether their conversation was confidential."[55] On March 5, 2013, O'Keefe agreed to pay Vera $100,000 and acknowledged in the settlement that at the time he published his video he was unaware that Vera had notified the police about the incident. The settlement contained the following apology: "O'Keefe regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family."[56][57]
On June 14, 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published its report finding no evidence that ACORN, or any of its related organizations, had mishandled any of the $40 million in federal money which they had received in recent years.
Indeed, because when I'm looking for credible recording, and not fakery and setup jobs, I always turn to James OKeefe. Gold standard in credibility right there.
In case you didn't notice, your "Podesta email" is from:
ilyse@moveon.org to: bigcampaign@googlegroups.com
The latter, is of course, a mailing list. A mailing list that we don't know whether the subscriber even actively read. In short, the "story" here is that MoveOn was staging anti-Trump protests. OMG, you don't say? I never knew that;)
You know, if you're not going to listen to Trump's own words which you can watch with a minute long visit to YouTube, I'm through wasting my time here. Go live in your own alternate reality. All I can say is, I'm glad for Ukraine's sake that your candidate has not a snowflake's chance in hell of ending up in office and giving Putin everything he's ever dreamed of. And when President Clinton starts giving Ukraine Javelins, I expect you to write an apology.
Oh, and since you're citing the Wikileaks emails..... have you ever actually read any of them? Directly, not, you know, carefully selected blurbs designed to make you mad at Clinton? Have you read what she says about Russia behind closed doors? Here, since the Goldman transcripts were the most recent news, let's look what she says there. She talks about them thusly in relation to Syria:
The Russian's view of this is very different. I mean, who conceives Syria as the same way he sees Chechnya? You know, you have to support toughness and absolute merciless reactions in order to drive the opposition down to be strangled, and you can't give an inch to them and you have to be willing to do what Assad basically has been willing to do.
That has been their position. It pretty much remains their position, and it is a position that has led to the restocking of sophisticated weapon systems all through this. The Russians' view is that if we provide enough weapons to Assad and if Assad is able to maintain control over most of the country, including the coastal areas where our naval base is, that's fine with us. Because you will have internal fighting still with the Kurds and with the Sunnis on the spectrum of extremism. But if we can keep our base and we can keep Assad in the titular position of running the country, that reflects well on us because we will demonstrate that we are back in the Middle East. Maybe in a ruthless way, but a way that from their perspective, the Russian perspective, Arabs will understand.
So the problem for the US and the Europeans has been from the very beginning: What is it you -- who is it you are going to try to arm? And you probably read in the papers my view was we should try to find some of the groups that were there that we thought we could build relationships with and develop some covert connections that might then at least give us some insight into what is going on inside Syria.
But the other side of the argument was a very -- it was a very good one, which is we don't know what will happen. We can't see down the road. We just need to stay out of it. The problem now is that you've got Iran in heavily. You've got probably at least 50,000 fighters inside working to support, protect and sustain Assad. And like any war, at least the wars that I have followed, the hard guys who are the best fighters move to the forefront.
So the free Syrian Army and a lot of the local rebel militias that were made up of pharmacists and business people and attorneys and teachers -- they're no match for these imported toughened Iraqi, Jordanian, Libyan, Indonesian, Egyptian, Chechen, Uzbek, Pakistani fighters that are now in there and have learned through more than a decade of very firsthand experience what it takes in terms of ruthlessness and military capacity.
So we now have what everybody warned we would have, and I am very concerned about the spillover effects. And there is still an argument that goes on inside the administration and inside our friends at NATO and the Europeans. How do intervene -- my view was you intervene as covertly as is possible for Americans to intervene. We used to be much better at this than we are now. Now, you know, everybody can't help themselves. They have to go out and tell their friendly reporters and somebody else: Look what we're doing and I want credit for it, and all the rest of it.
So we're not as good as we used to be, but we still -- we can still deliver, and we should have in my view been trying to do that so we would have better insight. But the idea that we would have like a no fly zone -- Syria, of course, did have when it started the fourth biggest Army in the world. It had very sophisticated air defense systems. They're getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports.
Does it sound like she's a fan of Putin behind closed doors? I could keep going (for example, she responds to a questioner whose premise is "A lot of our problems is because we have a com
The "ending of the Georgian sanctions" and Skolkovo were part of Obama's attempt an attempt at a Russian reset (and which was Clinton's job as secretary of state to implement). Something that was of course naive, and a policy which has since been quite reversed (NATO troops deployed to eastern Europe, sanctions on Russia (with the US always taking a stronger position on the issue than Europe), etc). But you're comparing Obama's naivite with someone who thinks the US should willingly get rid of NATO and personally praises Putin without prompting. How can you even think that's comparable?
You undercut your case when you link sources like "freebeacon", "powerlineblog", "breitbart", etc, just like I would if I were to link blogs, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc. Your link to "gave amply in return" says that the claim is false. There is no evidence for tit for tat, and more to the point, the sale wasn't Clinton's to deny. Furthermore, despite how much the right hates it, the Clinton foundation is one of the highest rated major charities in the US. I'm not exactly sure what you have against a charity that spends nearly 90% (a quite high number) of its funds on stamping out AIDS and other diseases, funding disaster relief, funding development projects in impoverished areas, etc. Unlike Trump's "charity" that turned out to be a scam, focused on things like buying paintings of himself and decorations, and which was recently delisted for illegal fundraising. Indeed, the very cases you cite where the Clinton foundation inadvertently failed to list donors is most notable in how rare it is, in that they voluntarily list their donors, something that they are not required to do and something that Trump did not do. Past tense because, as mentioned, his scam charity has now been blocked from further fundraising.
Your "Podesta story" is about Podesta (not Clinton) working for a biofuels company for which 20% of their investment funding came from Russians, a company from which, as far as the documentations go, he probably divested from a while back. Versus Trump, who personally has owned and run businesses heavily backed by Russians, whose customers were largely Russians, and has regularly travelled to Moscow to try to start new businesses in Russia. Personally.
It just amazes me that you cannot see the difference between these two sides. On one side, you have cases where Clinton implemented Obama's policies to try to mend relations with Russia, and ultimately ended up having to do just the opposite, working to get them under sanctions and such. You have Russians occasionally making investments in companies related to people related to Clinton, or making donations to a highly ranked charity that she doesn't earn money from. On the other hand, you have a person who currently, actively, and strongly personally supports Putin, has publicly advocated eliminating NATO, wants to give Russia Crimea, and freaking parades around information from Sputnik. How can you see these sides as even remotely comparable?
For what it's worth, the Pentagon did argue for being able to purchase a fixed number of RD-181s. But while the Obama admin has funded commercial crew and spawned the creation of a whole host of new domestic launch vehicles, Shelby and his band of Russia-firsters have worked relentlessly to try to kill it off in order to maximize profits for and minimize costs to ULA.
Ukrainian expats, such as myself, have also been — and remain — very vocal calling for tightening sanctions against Russia.
I join you in that from the other side of the aisle (no longer live in the US, but still vote:) ).
That said, I seriously hope you're not considering voting for the candidate whose campaign manager worked for Yanukovitch, whose foreign policy advisor actively works for Gazprom, who intervened on the Republican platform committee on only one issue of the hundreds discussed therein (that being to weaken language supporting Ukraine), says NATO is obsolete, and who insists that Russia did not invade Ukraine, among a laundry list of other things that would take pages to cover here.
The solar system is comprised of the sun, plus miscellaneous junk (0.14% the mass of the sun). If you want to be more precise, the solar system is comprised of the sun-Jupiter binary system (barycentre outside the sun), plus miscellaneous junk (~30% the mass of Jupiter) If you want to be more precise, the solar system is comprised of the sun, the gias giants, plus miscellaneous junk If you want to be more precise, the solar system is comprised of the sun, the gas giants, the ice giants, and miscellaneous junk
No, the mass for making Jupiter a star just isn't here, unless you want to take it from the sun (which actually might be nice - extending its lifespan). Easier might be selective removal of gases from Jupiter - remove part of the 1H and 4He but leave the 2H, and you might be able to get it up to a sufficient D-D reaction rate to be considered a star (although I haven't done any simulations; the compression might be too low).
To be fair, I'd say the much greater sin in planetary nomenclature was calling Uranus (please, no dumb jokes) "Uranus" (Greek) rather than "Caelus" (Roman) and thus sticking with the Roman nomenclature used with the rest of the planets.
Yeah, they could just store it in all that extra space they don't have.
or hauling an equivalent mass of titanium, aluminium, whatsit next time it's needed?
1) The trash is mostly plastic
2) You seem to envision that there's some sort of little magical manufacturing box that takes random trash as inputs and produces random useful things engineered to spacecraft tolerances as outputs. The real world doesn't work that way. In the real world, trash is a jumbled mix of materials in an extremely wide range of forms, often inseparable, while manufacturing processes require carefully controlled input streams, which differ for each desired output product. Some random food pouch may be comprised of various bulk polymers like polyethylene, polypropylene, etc, with an aluminized EVOH lining or similar. Think you can break it back down into polyethylene beads, polypropylene beads, EVOH gel and aluminum dust? Yeah, good freaking luck with that.
I know it's popular in sci-fi circles to envision that it's cheaper to make things in space. But in the real world, it distinctly is not. Yes, launch costs are expensive, but even more expensive is labour in space and the engineering costs to make each potential type of new production system. Unlike in sci-fi, you can't just magick these things into existence.
And they fall back to Earth on their own; LEO is not a perfect vacuum, and drag still exists. The point of a controlled deorbit maneuver is that it's controlled.
Be nice to Trump's headweasel, it does the best that it can.
(I personally like to mentally picture that Trump's hair is a live animal with a perfectly calm, rational temperment that's frankly very disturbed by all of the things that Trump says, but is very dedicated to its job and doesn't want to ruin a TV appearance by standing up and walking off. Maybe the sniffing was it repeatedly trying to restrain a sigh...)
are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actuallyreadthem as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.
You're not sure why? Did you see how hard it was to convince France to stop outright selling them their most advanced warship? So many people are willing to let business interests dominate the discussion; Europe (where I'm at) is particularly gutless on this front ("LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, nothing going on, just business as usual!" (BOOM!!!! BOOM!!!) "I said NOTHING GOING ON, nope, pay no attention to those explosions next door to us!!!!")
And Russia of course funds attacks on the other flank (Golden Dawn, Front National, Northern League, etc) - populists supporting policies favorable to Russia. And funds anti-fracking groups and other organizations that pose a threat to their energy dominance in Europe.
Russia would really like to pivot east to China, and has tried, but it just hasn't gone well. Their infrastructure isn't there, their people aren't there, and even the places in China where they need the energy supplies aren't, for the most part, close to the border. Like it or not, Europe is their market. So they have to try to hold onto it. And they know Europe's main weaknesses: established business interests and not wanting to "rock the boat".
Slashdot Mirror
That's all well and good. Now explain how it would have prevented a thruster failure. Or a metric-english conversion error on the entry trajectory calculation. Or a failed parachute. Or a launch vehicle failure. Or virtually any of the common ways that unmanned probes have actually failed. You might be able to salvage ~20% of them with humans aboard. Might. Meanwhile, humans are a massive added source of additional risk to a mission; they dramatically increase spacecraft size, complexity / part count, consumables, and just in general make things far more difficult. And you can build and launch numerous unmanned missions for the cost of one manned mission.
The full quote is:
"Uneducated" does not appear in there.
So, let's get this straight: the "scandal" here is that some nobody third party, rambled to someone - not Hillary, just to her campaign manager - that he's concerned that Clinton won't be able to get people to pay attention to "poll-driven, demographically-inspired messaging" when Trump is a "Kim Kardashian mold" entertainer spouting "hairbrained ideas" every day, and you can't get the news cycle to "default to policy" in such an environment. I can't make heads or tails of what that "compliant" remark is supposed to mean, but in general I think we can draw one clear conclusion: Hillary is clearly a demon, and we must elect Cheeto Benito instead.
#Risottogate
That's a link to Wikileaks's front page, not a link to a "compliant and uneducated voters" statement.
Googling for the phrase "compliant and uneducated voters" only comes up with this comment, presumably also by you.
As for your "there would be riots in the street", your people are talking about rioting in the streets. Not just riots, but outright coups if Hillary is elected. On camera. And your candidate is deliberately whipping them up to this with all of his repeated "shadowy conspiracy stealing the election with massive fraud" talk.
#Risottogate
I think you should just march in there and grab the Ecuadorian ambassador by the pussy. Don't even wait. When you're famous, you can get away with it.
Of course. Just compare the way they speak. Trump has far more complex sentence structure than Hillary. That's appealing to educated individuals.
But then again... maybe that wasn't fair of me. The security aspect of cyber is very very tough.
Apparently neither does Trump.
"Trump corp email servers - all internet accessible, single factor auth, no MDM, Win2003, no security patching."
Funny how nobody bothered hacking that.
Right. Part two of "James O'Keefe Does His Typical Hit Jobs".
For anyone who doesn't know his past, he made his name with the "ACORN videos", which led to investigations of the organization - and consequently, the videos. The results? From the Wikipedia summary:
Indeed, because when I'm looking for credible recording, and not fakery and setup jobs, I always turn to James OKeefe. Gold standard in credibility right there.
In case you didn't notice, your "Podesta email" is from:
ilyse@moveon.org
to:
bigcampaign@googlegroups.com
The latter, is of course, a mailing list. A mailing list that we don't know whether the subscriber even actively read. In short, the "story" here is that MoveOn was staging anti-Trump protests. OMG, you don't say? I never knew that ;)
You know, if you're not going to listen to Trump's own words which you can watch with a minute long visit to YouTube, I'm through wasting my time here. Go live in your own alternate reality. All I can say is, I'm glad for Ukraine's sake that your candidate has not a snowflake's chance in hell of ending up in office and giving Putin everything he's ever dreamed of. And when President Clinton starts giving Ukraine Javelins, I expect you to write an apology.
Oh, and since you're citing the Wikileaks emails..... have you ever actually read any of them? Directly, not, you know, carefully selected blurbs designed to make you mad at Clinton? Have you read what she says about Russia behind closed doors? Here, since the Goldman transcripts were the most recent news, let's look what she says there. She talks about them thusly in relation to Syria:
Does it sound like she's a fan of Putin behind closed doors? I could keep going (for example, she responds to a questioner whose premise is "A lot of our problems is because we have a com
Seriously? Oh for crying out loud.
The "ending of the Georgian sanctions" and Skolkovo were part of Obama's attempt an attempt at a Russian reset (and which was Clinton's job as secretary of state to implement). Something that was of course naive, and a policy which has since been quite reversed (NATO troops deployed to eastern Europe, sanctions on Russia (with the US always taking a stronger position on the issue than Europe), etc). But you're comparing Obama's naivite with someone who thinks the US should willingly get rid of NATO and personally praises Putin without prompting. How can you even think that's comparable?
You undercut your case when you link sources like "freebeacon", "powerlineblog", "breitbart", etc, just like I would if I were to link blogs, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc. Your link to "gave amply in return" says that the claim is false. There is no evidence for tit for tat, and more to the point, the sale wasn't Clinton's to deny. Furthermore, despite how much the right hates it, the Clinton foundation is one of the highest rated major charities in the US. I'm not exactly sure what you have against a charity that spends nearly 90% (a quite high number) of its funds on stamping out AIDS and other diseases, funding disaster relief, funding development projects in impoverished areas, etc. Unlike Trump's "charity" that turned out to be a scam, focused on things like buying paintings of himself and decorations, and which was recently delisted for illegal fundraising. Indeed, the very cases you cite where the Clinton foundation inadvertently failed to list donors is most notable in how rare it is, in that they voluntarily list their donors, something that they are not required to do and something that Trump did not do. Past tense because, as mentioned, his scam charity has now been blocked from further fundraising.
Your "Podesta story" is about Podesta (not Clinton) working for a biofuels company for which 20% of their investment funding came from Russians, a company from which, as far as the documentations go, he probably divested from a while back. Versus Trump, who personally has owned and run businesses heavily backed by Russians, whose customers were largely Russians, and has regularly travelled to Moscow to try to start new businesses in Russia. Personally.
It just amazes me that you cannot see the difference between these two sides. On one side, you have cases where Clinton implemented Obama's policies to try to mend relations with Russia, and ultimately ended up having to do just the opposite, working to get them under sanctions and such. You have Russians occasionally making investments in companies related to people related to Clinton, or making donations to a highly ranked charity that she doesn't earn money from. On the other hand, you have a person who currently, actively, and strongly personally supports Putin, has publicly advocated eliminating NATO, wants to give Russia Crimea, and freaking parades around information from Sputnik. How can you see these sides as even remotely comparable?
Let me Google that for you
For what it's worth, the Pentagon did argue for being able to purchase a fixed number of RD-181s. But while the Obama admin has funded commercial crew and spawned the creation of a whole host of new domestic launch vehicles, Shelby and his band of Russia-firsters have worked relentlessly to try to kill it off in order to maximize profits for and minimize costs to ULA.
I join you in that from the other side of the aisle (no longer live in the US, but still vote :) ).
That said, I seriously hope you're not considering voting for the candidate whose campaign manager worked for Yanukovitch, whose foreign policy advisor actively works for Gazprom, who intervened on the Republican platform committee on only one issue of the hundreds discussed therein (that being to weaken language supporting Ukraine), says NATO is obsolete, and who insists that Russia did not invade Ukraine, among a laundry list of other things that would take pages to cover here.
Slava Ukrayini :)
Nice attempt at shilling, but the group opposing the ban was primarily Republicans from ULA areas, particularly Richard Shelby (R-Boeing)
The solar system is comprised of the sun, plus miscellaneous junk (0.14% the mass of the sun).
If you want to be more precise, the solar system is comprised of the sun-Jupiter binary system (barycentre outside the sun), plus miscellaneous junk (~30% the mass of Jupiter)
If you want to be more precise, the solar system is comprised of the sun, the gias giants, plus miscellaneous junk
If you want to be more precise, the solar system is comprised of the sun, the gas giants, the ice giants, and miscellaneous junk
No, the mass for making Jupiter a star just isn't here, unless you want to take it from the sun (which actually might be nice - extending its lifespan). Easier might be selective removal of gases from Jupiter - remove part of the 1H and 4He but leave the 2H, and you might be able to get it up to a sufficient D-D reaction rate to be considered a star (although I haven't done any simulations; the compression might be too low).
To be fair, I'd say the much greater sin in planetary nomenclature was calling Uranus (please, no dumb jokes) "Uranus" (Greek) rather than "Caelus" (Roman) and thus sticking with the Roman nomenclature used with the rest of the planets.
Yeah, they could just store it in all that extra space they don't have.
1) The trash is mostly plastic
2) You seem to envision that there's some sort of little magical manufacturing box that takes random trash as inputs and produces random useful things engineered to spacecraft tolerances as outputs. The real world doesn't work that way. In the real world, trash is a jumbled mix of materials in an extremely wide range of forms, often inseparable, while manufacturing processes require carefully controlled input streams, which differ for each desired output product. Some random food pouch may be comprised of various bulk polymers like polyethylene, polypropylene, etc, with an aluminized EVOH lining or similar. Think you can break it back down into polyethylene beads, polypropylene beads, EVOH gel and aluminum dust? Yeah, good freaking luck with that.
I know it's popular in sci-fi circles to envision that it's cheaper to make things in space. But in the real world, it distinctly is not. Yes, launch costs are expensive, but even more expensive is labour in space and the engineering costs to make each potential type of new production system. Unlike in sci-fi, you can't just magick these things into existence.
And they fall back to Earth on their own; LEO is not a perfect vacuum, and drag still exists. The point of a controlled deorbit maneuver is that it's controlled.
Be nice to Trump's headweasel, it does the best that it can.
(I personally like to mentally picture that Trump's hair is a live animal with a perfectly calm, rational temperment that's frankly very disturbed by all of the things that Trump says, but is very dedicated to its job and doesn't want to ruin a TV appearance by standing up and walking off. Maybe the sniffing was it repeatedly trying to restrain a sigh...)
Changing the wifi password?
Human Rights Campaign. It's the largest LGBT lobbying association in the US.
Of course, when he finally does end up surrendered to Sweden, thiswill be my reaction.
Amazing that it didn't happen earlier...
are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.
You're not sure why? Did you see how hard it was to convince France to stop outright selling them their most advanced warship? So many people are willing to let business interests dominate the discussion; Europe (where I'm at) is particularly gutless on this front ("LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, nothing going on, just business as usual!" (BOOM!!!! BOOM!!!) "I said NOTHING GOING ON, nope, pay no attention to those explosions next door to us!!!!")
And Russia of course funds attacks on the other flank (Golden Dawn, Front National, Northern League, etc) - populists supporting policies favorable to Russia. And funds anti-fracking groups and other organizations that pose a threat to their energy dominance in Europe.
Russia would really like to pivot east to China, and has tried, but it just hasn't gone well. Their infrastructure isn't there, their people aren't there, and even the places in China where they need the energy supplies aren't, for the most part, close to the border. Like it or not, Europe is their market. So they have to try to hold onto it. And they know Europe's main weaknesses: established business interests and not wanting to "rock the boat".